Sanhedrin chapter 8, mishnah 4. The mishnah before us lists an entire series of additional technical details, where even if the boy indeed stole money from his father, bought meat and wine, went to someone else's house and gorged himself on everything there - three times and after warnings, where after the first warning he received no official punishment and after the second he received lashes - nevertheless, he does not incur the final penalty of stoning, unless a series of technical conditions are met. We will now deal with these conditions.
The Agreement of Both Parents:
If the father wants to bring him to Beis Din to be judged as a wayward and rebellious son and incur stoning, but the mother does not want to, or vice versa - the mother wants to and the father does not - he is not convicted. We see that both parents are required to give up completely on the boy, saying: "This child is hopeless, and the time has come." This condition gives great insight into the essence of this law: we are dealing with a boy doing terrible things, sunk in a habit he is unable to control, whose parents have lost hope of supporting and helping him. However, if one of the parents is still willing to stand by his side and does not want his conviction - the boy is not convicted. Both must bring him to Beis Din together, because the verse says that his father and his mother both take hold of him and bring him out to Beis Din. This is the first condition. And truly, what parent wants their son to be executed?
The Opinion of Rabbi Yehudah - "He does not listen to our voice":
Rabbi Yehudah, who is the Tanna that holds this law never occurred and never could have occurred, sets additional requirements derived from the wording of the verse "This son of ours... does not listen to our voice". He expounds the fact that the father and mother say "our voice" in the singular and not "our voices" in the plural, meaning that the parents must be identical to each other in three ways:
Voice - they must have the same voice, and sound like one another.
Appearance - they must look like one another.
Height - they must be equal in height and physical stature.
Rabbi Yehudah says: If his father and his mother are not mirror images of one another, he does not become a wayward and rebellious son, since these three conditions are required - voice, appearance, and height. Obviously, such a combination is exceptionally rare: whose voice is identical to his wife's voice, and whose face is identical to hers?
The Physical Wholeness of the Parents:
An additional condition: The parents must be able to fulfill the literal wording of the verse. The verse says that his father and his mother take hold of him - and for this, hands are required; "and bring him out to the elders of his city and to the gate of his place" - they lead him to Beis Din, and for this, legs are required; "and they shall say to the elders of his city: This son of ours is wayward and rebellious, he does not listen to our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard" - they must be able to speak, to see that he does not listen, and to hear that he does not obey them.
The language of the mishnah: "Hayah echad mehem gidem o chiger o ilem o suma o cheresh, eino na'aseh ben sorer umoreh" - if one of them was missing a hand, or lame, or mute, or blind, or deaf, he does not become a wayward and rebellious son. That is, if one of the parents is missing a hand, or is missing a leg, or cannot speak, or does not see, or does not hear - the boy is not convicted as a wayward and rebellious son. And all this is derived from the wording of the verse:
"Vetafesu vo aviv ve'imo" - and his father and his mother shall take hold of him: "and not amputees," they cannot be missing a hand.
"Vehotzi'u oso" - and they shall bring him out: "and not lame," they cannot be missing a leg.
"Ve'amru" - and they shall say: "and not mute," they cannot be mute.
"Bneinu zeh" - this son of ours: "and not blind," they must be able to see the son they are pointing at.
"Einennu shomea bekoleinu" - he does not listen to our voice: "and not deaf." They must notice with their eyes that he is not listening, and hear with their ears his words and his rejection of what they are saying.
Here too, if we seek to provide a reason for the verse, one can say: if the parents could not be good parents due to some disability, this serves as an excuse for the boy. But in truth it is a scriptural decree, and the point here is the multitude of technical details that exempt the boy from the law of a wayward and rebellious son.
The Order of Warnings and the Judgment:
"Masrin bo" - they give him a formal warning in the presence of two witnesses: "Do not do this again, do not steal our money and buy wine and meat with it."
"Bifnei sheloshah... umalkin oso" - after the second offense they bring him to a beis din of three judges, and they give him actual lashes, just as a beis din would practice in their times.
"Chazar vekilkel - nidon be'esrim vesheloshah" - if he did this a third time and ignored them again, he is judged in a beis din of twenty-three. And out of the twenty-three, there must be the three judges from the previous beis din who gave him lashes, since they must identify the same boy that they had whipped previously.
Running Away Before the Final Verdict:
Another technical detail: "Barach ad shelo nigmar dino" - the boy did all his deeds improperly, and in the first three months after his bar mitzvah he stole, was warned, and was caught three times, and at the time he stands for his verdict, he runs away. That is, before they managed to bring him to a beis din of twenty-three and convict him, he disappeared. And how long did he disappear? Until his window of time closed and he reached full maturity, at the beginning of the growth of the lower beard. At this point they find him and seek to judge him - it is too late, he is exempt. The reason: in his current state he would not be liable, since one only becomes a stubborn and rebellious son during the first three months and before the growth of the lower beard.
The principle here is that a person who committed a transgression cannot stand trial if his law in his current state would be different. This is of course a very rare situation, and it almost never happens, since usually from the age of bar mitzvah and bas mitzvah the law remains the same. However, there are examples: a non-Jew who blasphemed God, whose punishment is the sword - decapitation; and if he converted in the meantime and was brought to trial, he is now a Jew, and the punishment for a blasphemer, as we saw earlier, is stoning. Since his punishment now is not the same as the punishment he would have been liable for previously, we do not punish him at all. This is a technical matter that exempts him, and the same law applies to a boy who cannot be convicted after his lower beard has fully grown.
Running Away After the Final Verdict:
However, if they already convicted him, and at the time they are taking him out to the place of stoning he runs away - "Barach... ve'achar kach hekif zakan hatachton", and afterward he reached full maturity - this does not matter, and his law is "chayav" - he is liable. Even if he ran away and was caught fifty years later, and he is already sixty-three years old, an elderly man advanced in years - they still punish him at that stage as a convicted stubborn and rebellious son, since one cannot evade the law after it has been ruled. At this stage there is no statute of limitations, and the sentence must be carried out.
In summary: In this Mishnah we learned a series of technical details that impede the law of a stubborn and rebellious son: the agreement of both parents together to bring him to the beis din; the view of Rabbi Yehudah which requires equality between the parents in voice, appearance, and height; the completeness of their limbs - that they cannot be amputees, lame, mute, blind, or deaf, as learned from the wording of the verse; the sequence of the three warnings and lashes leading up to a trial in a beis din of twenty-three; and finally the distinction between one who runs away before his final verdict, who is exempt because his law in his current state is different, and one who runs away after his final verdict, who is liable forever.